But what rationale do you have to not skip the single-handed dictatorship and go straight to the consensus-based rule in the first place?
Are we still talking about retrobolting this line? If so, you need only scroll to the top of this page to see democracy in action as it votes to leave the route alone.
But, as proven during the last 7 years of U.S. history, democracy fails when the majority of voters are slaves to religious delusions.
Jay
So FEAR a Texas Sport Climbing Jihad like your sport depended on it!
That's the reasonable option. Lots of bolted sport routes could be toproped. My point is sport climbers charish the lead wether they admit it or not, and, they rape the experiance for some gymnastic ideal, when really the gymanstic can be acheived in other ways.
That's the reasonable option. Lots of bolted sport routes could be toproped.
And lots can't, at least not easily.
In reply to:
My point is sport climbers charish the lead wether they admit it or not...
I agree with that.
In reply to:
...and, they rape the experiance for some gymnastic ideal, when really the gymanstic can be acheived in other ways.
And I don't understand that. That sentence is incomprehensible.
Sport climbing isn't entirely about the moves to most sport climbers, though even if it was, on most of the better routes, leading is more enjoyable; the rope isn't in your face, around your neck, or right where you need to put your hand, and you don't have to unclip directionals. On the other hand, there are routes (I'd estimate 10-15% of routes I've done) where toproping is more enjoyable, because clipping really interrupts the flow of the movement.
"Yeah, replacing old dangerous bolts with new ones is fine, just don't add any new bolts in new places...... that's what I think. "
...what about replacing old pins?
That's a judgement call. If replacing a long established fixed-pin with a bolt makes more sense (because, for example the bolt will last much longer) then doing so is usually considered OK. In some places, such as the Gunks, however--this practice is not acceptable at all.
My point is sport climbers cherish the lead wether they admit it or not...
I agree with that.
In reply to:
...and, they rape the experience for some gymnastic ideal, when really the gymnastic can be achieved in other ways.
And I don't understand that. That sentence is incomprehensible.
It is kind of hard for me to explain (corrected my spelling ^^^).
I have been ridiculed by more sport climbers for top-roping than by any other type of climber, yet top-roping is perfectly inline with sport climbing (the only reason sport climbers ever lead is because it is easier). So if a top-rope is available, why lead? I say, because there is something in the lead that sport climbers are not willing to admit to, yet they know it because they choose to lead rather than follow.
If all is equal, there is no reason to, and I wish people wouldn't.
However, all else is rarely equal. Even dead vertical faces are usually much more convenient to climb (particularly if you are trying to quickly do a bunch of warmup routes) if you have bolts for leading instead of having to hike around to set a TR.
In reply to:
Why pull the rope and re-lead once a toprope is available?
Because leading a sport route is almost always at least as easy as toproping (and in many cases it is much easier).
My point is sport climbers charish the lead wether they admit it or not, ...
Like Jay, I also agree with this. (However, I don't cherish it personally---I think the notion that leading is "better style" is a left-over from the traditional mindset and makes no sense in modern gymnastic climbing.)
On the other hand, there are routes (I'd estimate 10-15% of routes I've done) where toproping is more enjoyable, because clipping really interrupts the flow of the movement.
But you can also very often avoid difficult clips without giving up on other advantages of leading. E.g., skipping hard clips when you're far from the ground, partial-toproping/strategic stick clipping (possibly necessitating crash pads and/or a spotter at the beginning), extending draws to the ideal waist-clip length, etc.
In my experience, hard clips that cannot be avoided are very rare.
Sport climbing isn't entirely about the moves to most sport climbers
What else is there? If there is more, is it possible that these 'other' experiences are at odds with the theme of sport climbing?
Yes, it is at odds. Most self-described "sport climbers" are really "sport clippers". They are gear-wankers, just like many of their traddie brethren. They truly are after the make-believe, watered-down, low-skill "clip up" emulation of traditional climbing which the likes of Healyje confusedly thinks represents the entire modern face of the sport. Personally I think it's funny as hell.
Part of this confusion is why I have begun to prefer the term "gymnastic climbing" (which I think I stole from John Gill's website) to describe the style of climbing I participate in. Many "sport climbers" are highly concerned about ancillary activities like leading or clipping, or other details of the system of protection. Many "sport climbers" think they are playing a completely different game as soon as they untie from a rope (and I, for one, take them at their word). But some of us play the same game on boulder problems and on routes: we're solely after interesting and difficult moves, so it makes sense to select protection systems based purely on their merits for the task at hand, rather than based on some ill-defined notion of "style".
(This post was edited by fracture on May 30, 2007, 3:47 PM)
I like your last 4 posts. And, I believe I understand your view.
But, I can not internalize your willingness to dismiss the 'lead' experience as something trivial and not truly associated with 'pure' climbing.
In my mind, the magnitude of the object you attempt to climb is related to the actual experience of climbing it. Removing magnitude removes experience. (experience that is inseparable and desirable - imo).
Yes, it is at odds. Most self-described "sport climbers" are really "sport clippers". They are gear-wankers, just like many of their traddie brethren. They truly are after the make-believe, watered-down, low-skill "clip up" emulation of traditional climbing which the likes of Healyje confusedly thinks represents the entire modern face of the sport.
By your admission, most self-described "sport climbers" (are not we all self-described?) are what Healyje confusedly thinks represent the entire majority of that modern face of the sport.
Yes, it is at odds. Most self-described "sport climbers" are really "sport clippers". They are gear-wankers, just like many of their traddie brethren. They truly are after the make-believe, watered-down, low-skill "clip up" emulation of traditional climbing which the likes of Healyje confusedly thinks represents the entire modern face of the sport.
By your admission, most self-described "sport climbers" (are not we all self-described?) are what Healyje confusedly thinks represent the entire majority of that modern face of the sport.
I probably shouldn't have said "most". It's not really a clearly quantifiable category like that. Someone who thinks stick-clipping three bolts is cheating is a sport clipper, and so is someone who thinks the same about using stick-clips at all. But there's obviously a difference of degree. Someone who thinks toproping a sport route is less valid than a lead ascent is certainly a kind of sport clipper. And there's a hell of a lot of those; probably a "most" if we used that as the cutoff point.
However, in the context of Joseph's "analysis" of modern climbing, I should've probably restricted that to a subset of sport clippers. (Though they are certainly not small in number (at least not in Austin), and it is certainly possible that it is a majority, but I don't really know.)
But getting back to the topic: aside from the fact that they sometimes want stupidly low first bolts so that they don't have to stick-clip, I don't generally have significant bolt-related political disagreements with even the most extreme sport clippers. They tend to prefer the type of route development I prefer, but for different reasons. And I generally don't think the motives someone has for wanting the climb the way they want to climb are particularly relevant in the context of a discussion about how to manage public land. We have to find ways to share public climbing resources, and while making fun of each other is tons of fun, when the time comes to settle disputes, everyone in the relevant community deserves an equal vote (metaphorically or literally), without special-preferences based on previous bolting activities, their reasons for climbing, or anything else.
The fact that this position is controversial should be alarming to any new climbers who are reading this thread.
(This post was edited by fracture on May 31, 2007, 3:50 PM)
First, I'm guilty of not reading the whole thread. sorry.
Me too, but I suspect it's cause some old timers are once again trying to educate a bunch of dumb-assed noobs who learned how to clip bolts in a gym and now think they know it all.
when the time comes to settle disputes, everyone in the relevant community deserves an equal vote (metaphorically or literally), without special-preferences based on previous bolting activities, their reasons for climbing, or anything else.
Absolutely not, this is again a 'tyranny of democracy' where the least experienced and skilled would determine the fate of resources. The root issue is you and many like you find no bolt objectionable and view rock simply as a consumable resource to be exploited by bolting. I personally find this attitude both unacceptable and reprehensible to the point of fighting it at every turn. Again, what you suggest would be like the children in a family of eight determining how the meals and finances are managed.
In reply to:
The fact that this position is controversial should be alarming to any new climbers who are reading this thread.
New climbers who are reading this thread should understand real rock is not simply an outdoor climbing gym and was not put here simply to provide you entertainment value. It has intrinsic value in its pristine state. You, as a new climber who started in a gym may, for the moment, think bolts are synonomous with climbing but nothing could be further from the truth. Bolts are protection of last resort outdoors. And even in that context not all rock should be bolted or climbed and when bolted should not always be 'safe' the way all routes in a gym are. Real climbing is first and foremost about taking responsibility for yourself and that means learning to assume and manage risks. Real climbs are not 'safe' and hopefully never will be.
Yo Fracture, you talk of democratic/consensus/committee-based route development. Here's my take: Route Developers will vote with their (bolt)guns, and the consuming climber public will vote with their feet. Whichever way you believe the balance of power within the first ascensionist to climbing public continuum should swing probably depends on whether you view routes as being more like public streets or more like artistically designed paths in, say, a Japanese Zen Garden tradition. Are route developers more like artists or are they more like public engineers? Advanced hiking path coordinators?
when the time comes to settle disputes, everyone in the relevant community deserves an equal vote (metaphorically or literally), without special-preferences based on previous bolting activities, their reasons for climbing, or anything else.
Absolutely not, this is again a 'tyranny of democracy' where the least experienced and skilled would determine the fate of resources. The root issue is you and many like you find no bolt objectionable and view rock simply as a consumable resource to be exploited by bolting. I personally find this attitude both unacceptable and reprehensible to the point of fighting it at every turn. Again, what you suggest would be like the children in a family of eight determining how the meals and finances are managed.
In reply to:
The fact that this position is controversial should be alarming to any new climbers who are reading this thread.
New climbers who are reading this thread should understand real rock is not simply an outdoor climbing gym and was not put here simply to provide you entertainment value. It has intrinsic value in its pristine state. You, as a new climber who started in a gym may, for the moment, think bolts are synonomous with climbing but nothing could be further from the truth. Bolts are protection of last resort outdoors. And even in that context not all rock should be bolted or climbed and when bolted should not always be 'safe' the way all routes in a gym are. Real climbing is first and foremost about taking responsibility for yourself and that means learning to assume and manage risks. Real climbs are not 'safe' and hopefully never will be.
Old climbers who are reading this should realize that there was thing commonly referred to as the "sport climbing revolution" that took place like two decades ago.
Old climbers who are reading this should realize that there was thing commonly referred to as the "sport climbing revolution" that took place like two decades ago.
Jay
I'm glad it did.
Say J, if say some 'majority' of climbers votes to retro Bachar Yerian, are you seriously OK with that?
Old climbers who are reading this should realize that there was thing commonly referred to as the "sport climbing revolution" that took place like two decades ago.
Jay
I'm glad it did.
Say J, if say some 'majority' of climbers votes to retro Bachar Yerian, are you seriously OK with that?
DMT
I've stated no opinion on retro-bolting, but to me, it's pretty straightforward: trad routes should be left in their original condition, unless the FAist consents to the change. On the other hand, a dangerously bolted sport route is a contradiction, and should be fixed, regardless of what the FAist thinks.
I've stated no opinion on retro-bolting, but to me, it's pretty straightforward: trad routes should be left in their original condition, unless the FAist consents to the change. On the other hand, a dangerously bolted sport route is a contradiction, and should be fixed, regardless of what the FAist thinks.
Jay
I don't think you will get a huge fight there jay, but what about fracture's proposal to add more dogging bolts for pure convenience? To established, classic routes with clean falls, simply for quicker (and therefore easier?) redpoints?
I don't think that is real cool. At that point, all climbing routes become the same.
I've stated no opinion on retro-bolting, but to me, it's pretty straightforward: trad routes should be left in their original condition, unless the FAist consents to the change. On the other hand, a dangerously bolted sport route is a contradiction, and should be fixed, regardless of what the FAist thinks.
Jay
I don't think you will get a huge fight there jay, but what about fracture's proposal to add more dogging bolts for pure convenience? To established, classic routes with clean falls, simply for quicker (and therefore easier?) redpoints?
I don't think that is real cool. At that point, all climbing routes become the same.
Established sport routes? I would have no problem with that. Established trad routes? I would be strongly opposed to it.
19 /
16%
